[qasdfdsaq]

So having come across this document:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...rification.pdf

Which describes the coverage obligation attached to the lot of 800Mhz LTE spectrum O2 won last year, it seems the coverage obligation doesn't actually apply to 4G.

Quote:

(a) The Licensee shall by no later than 31 December 2017 provide, and thereafter maintain, an electronic communications network that is capable of providing, with 90% confidence, a mobile telecommunications service with a sustained downlink speed of not less than 2 Mbps when that network is lightly loaded, to users

users:
(i) in an area within which at least:
a. 98% of the population of the United Kingdom lives, and
b. 95% of the population of each of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland lives; and
(ii) at indoor locations that meet the condition specified in paragraph 6(b)(ii) of this Schedule, which are within any residential premises within the area specified in paragraph 6(a)(i).

They've also, interestingly, defined what they deem acceptable signal attenuation levels to define "indoor" coverage. And they're not allowed to use femtocells:

Quote:

(b) For the purposes of paragraph 6(a)(ii) of this Schedule:
(i) the service must be provided using radio equipment which is not situated inside the relevant residential premises;
(ii) the condition referred to is that the radio signal propagation loss from the outside of the building to the location inside the building does not exceed:
a. 13.2dB for radio signals in the frequency ranges 791MHz – 821MHz and 832MHz – 862MHz;
b. 13.7dB for radio signals in the frequency ranges 880MHz – 915MHz and 925MHz – 960MHz;
c. 16.5dB for radio signals in the frequency ranges 1710MHz – 1785MHz and 1805MHz – 1880MHz;
d. 17.0dB for radio signals in the frequency ranges 1900MHz – 1980MHz and 2110MHz – 2170MHz;
e. 17.9dB for radio signals in the frequency range 2500MHz – 2690MHz;
f. Any other propagation loss notified to the Licensee by Ofcom in respect of radio signals in any other frequency band.”

But most importantly:

Quote:

1.4 Below we summarise our approach to monitor and verify compliance with this obligation based on a service provided using current LTE technology, noting that the obligation holder may use any of its portfolio of licensed mobile spectrum in order to meet the obligation. However, it will also be open to the obligation holder to meet the obligation with alternative mobile broadband technologies if they wish to.

In other words, the coverage obligation spectrum doesn't actually impose any obligation to use that spectrum - or indeed, even to use any LTE or 4G technology at all - but simply to provide 2Mbps indoors to 98% of the population.

Theoretically then, all O2 has to do is provide 98% indoor 3G coverage at 2Mbps or above and doesn't have to provide any 4G at all...

... Assuming that document is accurate and up to date of course.

Thoughts anyone? Especially about the extremely lax attenuation levels OFCOM are proposing for "indoor" coverage, or that a theoretical SINR calculation is the sole definer of "2Mbps service"?

[enapace]

Wow simply mind blown that is really lax terms. So O2 could do the same thing with 4G as it did with 3G and that would be fine.

Not sure what tree they barking up with the difference in indoor loss between 1800MHz and 2100MHz it is a lot more than half a dB of difference between the two.

If it was that little there wouldn't even be a point in having 2G for EE as it wouldn't be noticeable.

[Aye Up]

Though it may say it isn't much of a coverage obligation in the wordage, the public statements from O2 would leave me to believe they are aiming for the 98% 4G/3G/2G coverage regardless of the rather weak obligation. It is very likely Vodafone and O2 will be sporting similar coverage levels that will likely beat MBNL based ones come the beginning of 2016. Spectrum wise we know O2 is at a distinct disadvantage though I suspect they will make up for this in the next auction rounds.

I am no fan of O2 but their 4G rollout has only just got going, give them chance.

[Everything Goes]

Yes it could indeed mean all they need to do is provide 3G coverage at 2Mbps. Given they how poor their 3G coverage is it will still be a challenge for them!

This may be why they are claiming to be doing the roll out so fast (by end of 2015). So they may well weasle out of it much like they did with no increase in contract prices.

http://www.o2.co.uk/network/future



*We’re currently aiming for 98% indoor and outdoor coverage by 2015, up to two years before the anticipated regulatory requirment.

[japaul]

Essentially this is correct. Whilst the obligation comes with the licence O2 have, it was always the intention that how it was provided would be both technology and spectrum neutral and I don't think this is a problem.

Remember there is no requirement to use LTE. Say, hypothetically WiMax was used instead. It would be a bit daft if you could use WiMax but the obligation measurement methodology only allowed LTE. You also have to allow for developments in the standards so just specifying a standard that couldn't change would also be daft. It's true that in theory it could be done with just 3G but actually it would be pretty difficult because of cell edge performance so would be more expensive. In practice I don't think there's any real problem here.

[japaul]

Quote:

Originally Posted by enapace

Wow simply mind blown that is really lax terms. So O2 could do the same thing with 4G as it did with 3G and that would be fine.

Not sure what tree they barking up with the difference in indoor loss between 1800MHz and 2100MHz it is a lot more than half a dB of difference between the two.

If it was that little there wouldn't even be a point in having 2G for EE as it wouldn't be noticeable.

I think you are perhaps misunderstanding this a bit. The building penetration loss figures are just the difference between the outdoor and indoor signal. However you need to remember that before this, the higher frequency signal will already be a lot weaker outdoor because of the normal propagation losses assumed in the model. The extra BPL loss is then on top of this.

[enapace]

Quote:

Originally Posted by japaul

I think you are perhaps misunderstanding this a bit. The building penetration loss figures are just the difference between the outdoor and indoor signal. However you need to remember that before this, the higher frequency signal will already be a lot weaker outdoor because of the normal propagation losses assumed in the model. The extra BPL loss is then on top of this.

Ah yeah that makes a lot of sense I was thinking this morning that it sounded odd was a bit tired at the time. Thanks for the clarification.

[qasdfdsaq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by enapace

Wow simply mind blown that is really lax terms. So O2 could do the same thing with 4G as it did with 3G and that would be fine.

Not sure what tree they barking up with the difference in indoor loss between 1800MHz and 2100MHz it is a lot more than half a dB of difference between the two.

If it was that little there wouldn't even be a point in having 2G for EE as it wouldn't be noticeable.

Well the 3G obligation only required 768Kbps 90% of the time on an empty cell and Sodafone didn't even manage that

Well I've said this many times - the difference in signal "reach" between 2G at 1800Mhz and 3G at 2100Mhz is as much down to the differences in the technology as it is frequency.

If you ran 3G at 1800Mhz or 2G at 2100Mhz you'd still see most of the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aye Up

I am no fan of O2 but their 4G rollout has only just got going, give them chance.

I am a fan of O2 and their 4G rollout has already overtaken EE near where I live.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

Yes it could indeed mean all they need to do is provide 3G coverage at 2Mbps. Given they how poor their 3G coverage is it will still be a challenge for them!

Well thinking about it now it may be a very much non-issue as you say, technologically speaking it'd be a lot cheaper and easier for them to fulfill the obligation using 800Mhz LTE than it would with either a single 900Mhz or two 2100Mhz WCDMA carriers.

But it still leaves a technical loophole there for them to stick a middle finger to OFCOM and not roll out any 4G at all

[qasdfdsaq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by japaul

Remember there is no requirement to use LTE. Say, hypothetically WiMax was used instead. It would be a bit daft if you could use WiMax but the obligation measurement methodology only allowed LTE. You also have to allow for developments in the standards so just specifying a standard that couldn't change would also be daft. It's true that in theory it could be done with just 3G but actually it would be pretty difficult because of cell edge performance so would be more expensive. In practice I don't think there's any real problem here.

Agreed, it was just a bit surprising for me to find out at this stage.

Did the same apply to the 3G obligations? If so they could have theoretically met the requirements using an evolved-EDGE 2G service since that only asked for 768Kbps

Quote:

Originally Posted by japaul

I think you are perhaps misunderstanding this a bit. The building penetration loss figures are just the difference between the outdoor and indoor signal. However you need to remember that before this, the higher frequency signal will already be a lot weaker outdoor because of the normal propagation losses assumed in the model. The extra BPL loss is then on top of this.

The basic Friis path loss equation only adds an extra 1.4dB of free-space loss for 1800 vs 2100... Though not sure how the scatter model they uses affects it.

What I'm skeptical about though, is the matter that -4.1dB SINR is the sole and only determinant of whether a 2Mbps service is being delivered. From my readings so far that's achieved nearly 99% of the time already, and basically any signal above zero bars manages to achieve that.

You'd have to have to achieve a very, very, very weak LTE signal to be able to get worse than -4.1dB SINR, and even then the signal can be completely unusable for other reasons.

[japaul]

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

What I'm skeptical about though, is the matter that -4.1dB SINR is the sole and only determinant of whether a 2Mbps service is being delivered. From my readings so far that's achieved nearly 99% of the time already, and basically any signal above zero bars manages to achieve that.

'Tis roughly what's in the standards though. See page 73 http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr/...42v080400p.pdf

[Charlie_Hobbs]

Why does o2's coverage checker look different to Vodafone? (apart from the obvious) it seems more 'blended' whereas Voda shows specific square blocks of differing signal. Is the blanket 3G coverage versus a bit more patchy Voda 3G coverage to be believed in central London?

[japaul]

Voda's hasn't shown any 3G900 for a while.

[Night Hawk]

Does anyone really still think O2 will exist by the time the obligations have to be met? If ever a company was ripe for the picking ...

[qasdfdsaq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie_Hobbs

Why does o2's coverage checker look different to Vodafone? (apart from the obvious) it seems more 'blended' whereas Voda shows specific square blocks of differing signal. Is the blanket 3G coverage versus a bit more patchy Voda 3G coverage to be believed in central London?

There's the 3G900, and the fact they're using some really er... "optimistic" figures for 4G coverage...

[jonmorris]

Is it true that O2 only avoided being penalised for not reaching its required level of coverage for 3G by being able to claim EDGE as a 3G technology?

Not sure if it's an urban myth, but at the time I was told this by a fair few people. If it was true, why wouldn't O2 try and find some tricks and loopholes to meet its obligations without doing all of the necessary work?

[wavejockglw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonmorris

Is it true that O2 only avoided being penalised for not reaching its required level of coverage for 3G by being able to claim EDGE as a 3G technology?

Not sure if it's an urban myth, but at the time I was told this by a fair few people. If it was true, why wouldn't O2 try and find some tricks and loopholes to meet its obligations without doing all of the necessary work?

Why do I find the questions raised in this post no surprise?

EDGE was not claimed as 3G technology AFAIK and Ofcom allowed O2 an extension to meet it's obligation re 3G. 3G was not relevant to customers up until the original iPhone arrived and the mobile Internet with Apple's innovation of apps etc, which EDGE could support perfectly well made mobile data popular. There is no way Apple would have gambled their original iPhone launch with a network exclusive deal that did not provide a good user experience. Ofcom were aware of this and probably took that into account when considering the extension. Fact is that it was Apple and O2 that created the new age of mobile Internet in the UK, not 3 or Orange or Vodafone or T-Mobile who were all trying to flog 3G with no clear reason why customers should buy it! As for the notion that the company might do the same thing twice, well that might suit a disinformation agenda to divert attention away from a clear favourite network (which has provided privileged 4G access free to supportive contributors who have identified themselves clearly), that has rolled out no 4G to regular customers as yet, but it's not a serious likelihood that whilst ahead O2 or any others will hold back and I suspect the OP knows that already or should stop and think about what is actually happening now.

[Three]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavejockglw

Why do I find the questions raised in this post no surprise?

EDGE was not claimed as 3G technology AFAIK and Ofcom allowed O2 an extension to meet it's obligation re 3G. 3G was not the big breakthrough as the original iPhone was the device that created the mobile Internet market with it's innovation of apps etc, which EDGE could support perfectly well. As for the notion that the company might do the same thing twice, well that might suit a disinformation agenda to divert attention away from a clear favourite network (which has provided privileged 4G access free, for supportive contributors), that has rolled out no 4G to regular customers as yet, but it's not a serious likelihood that whilst ahead O2 or any others will hold back and I suspect the OP knows that already.

Sorry, come again? What basis do you have to go on to claim O2 a favourite network?

[wavejockglw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Three

Sorry, come again? What basis do you have to go on to claim O2 a favourite network?

I did not suggest that.

Reread my post again.....

[Three]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavejockglw

I did not suggest that.

Reread my post again.....

I see, apologies.

[wavejockglw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Three

I see, apologies.

Cheers, no apology needed.... pleased you reread and confirmed.

Regards!

[qasdfdsaq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonmorris

Is it true that O2 only avoided being penalised for not reaching its required level of coverage for 3G by being able to claim EDGE as a 3G technology?

Not sure if it's an urban myth, but at the time I was told this by a fair few people. If it was true, why wouldn't O2 try and find some tricks and loopholes to meet its obligations without doing all of the necessary work?

I suspect it's an urban myth.

I'm not sure what it specified about technology , but the (amended) 3G coverage requirement specifically required a speed of above 768Kbps with 90% confidence, which EDGE can't deliver with 1% confidence.

Evolved-EDGE can, but O2 doesn't have any of that - AFAIK no UK network does.

I just quite enjoy finding technical loopholes, even if I doubt it'll be put to use in practice. Maybe it's because of my legal training.

[Stiggles]

This doesn't surprise me whatsoever.

Their complete lack of investment and coverage of 3G for over a decade, shows they don't give a hoot about customers or the sorry state of their network.

[Three]

Ouch. http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/i/753408481

[japaul]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonmorris

Is it true that O2 only avoided being penalised for not reaching its required level of coverage for 3G by being able to claim EDGE as a 3G technology?

Definitely untrue Jon. In fact the parameter Ofcom chose to determine coverage in the 2007 3G assessment doesn't even exist in an EDGE network.